I also find it interesting that you will lambaste the Roman papacy for proclaiming that his teachings on faith and morals--which in your mind are often nothing more than theological opinions--have infallible authority yet at the same time complain that a bishop of our own Church refuses to grant any dogmatic authority to his theological opinions. Don't you find this double standard rather hypocritical? You can't have it both ways, Fr. Ambrose.

I find your reasoning too contrived.

Please allow me to have my view of things without asking whether or not I am hypocritical. The fact that you phrase it as a question does not disguise the ad hominem.

There's no ad hominem in saying that you hold to a hypocritical double standard, for I'm criticizing the double standard to which you hold, not you who hold the double standard. Last I knew, double standards were fair game for debate and criticism.

I don't see any confusion whatsoever in what His Eminence has stated. He personally doesn't believe in the Immaculate Conception for specific theological reasons, but he sees it possible for other Orthodox to disagree with him and still remain Orthodox. What's so confusing or wishy-washy about that? What's so wrong with the fact that Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) is not as rigidly dogmatic as you would like him to be on this particular issue?

In my mind there is confusion because I see his written words to Daniel Barton as a repudiation of his previous allowance that Orthodox may believe or not believe in the Immaculate Conception. You and others do not so interpret them. Hence there is confusion.

Might I suggest that the confusion you blame on Metropolitan Kallistos is purely a projection of your own? There's no repudiation whatsoever in His Eminence's words to Daniel Barton. "I personally do not believe in the doctrine..." is a statement of personal belief regarding the doctrine in question. It speaks in no way of whether it is acceptable for Orthodox to believe in the doctrine, because it does not speak at all of other Orthodox.

I think that you and I have hold of different parts of the elephant.

While you have focused on the first half of the sentence I am looking more at the second half

"personally does not believe the doctrine as it changes all of history of mankind".

I would see a bishop who has the charism of "rightly dividing the word of truth" as not acting responsibly towards his flock if he did not bring to their attention that pro IC members are holding a doctrine which "changes all of history of mankind".

Then you're projecting onto His Eminence your personal ideals of how he should shepherd his flock and not discerning what he actually intended to communicate. Whether you focus on the trunk of the elephant or his rump, there simply is no flip-flopping. Metropolitan Kallistos personally does not believe in the Immaculate Conception but recognizes no dogmatic authority that binds the Orthodox faithful to agree with him. That's certainly his prerogative as a bishop to make such a distinction between personal theologoumenon and the dogmatic authority of the Church and to discern when to present each.

I, for one, am very happy to see Metropolitan Kallistos exercise enough humility to not teach his personal beliefs regarding the Immaculate Conception as though they were the dogmas of the Church.

This bishop can be, to me, alarming in his personal views and his insistence that the Orthodox are entitled to hold them.

Another alteration of his beliefs has taken place on the question of the ordination of women.

"As regards this present piece, it represents an extensive revision of something that I originally wrote in 1978. Since then my views on the issue have altered. In 1978 I considered the ordination of women priests to be an impossibility. Now I am much more hesitant. I am far from convinced by many of the current arguments advanced in favor of women priests; but at the same time a number of the arguments urged on the other side now appear to me a great lead less conclusive than they did twenty years ago. What I would plead is that we Orthodox should regard the matter as essentially an open question. Let us not imagine that in this area everything is clarified and finally settled; for manifestly it is not, either for us Orthodox or for other Christians.'

One assumes that the bishop may present another alteration of his beliefs at some future date.

So a bishop has the humility to recognize that he doesn't know everything and tweaks his views a bit after researching the matter more closely. How is that bad? I honestly wish more Orthodox were like that.

Going from "women priests are an impossibility" to "we must be open to women priests in Orthodoxy" is not simply "tweaking" his views. You seem to be saying that you agree with him that we should be open to the idea of Orthodox women priests

And you seem to be putting words into my mouth, which I don't appreciate.

His Eminence Kallistos (Ware) and Errors about the Immaculate Conception.

If we read the statement of His All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople we learn that the teaching of the Immaculate Conception is based on an erroneous teaching of Original Sin.

In order to allow the Orthodox faithful to subscribe to the Immaculate Conception His Eminence needs to allow them to hold an erroneous teaching on Original Sin.These are nether of them minor errors and Metropolitan Kallistos is, in my opinion, acting very irresponsibly if he will allow a belief in two erroneous doctrines in the Orthodeox Church.

His Eminence Kallistos (Ware) and Errors about the Immaculate Conception.

If we read the statement of His All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople we learn that the teaching of the Immaculate Conception is based on an erroneous teaching of Original Sin.

In order to allow the Orthodox faithful to subscribe to the Immaculate Conception His Eminence needs to allow them to hold an erroneous teaching on Original Sin.These are nether of them minor errors and Metropolitan Kallistos is, in my opinion, acting very irresponsibly if he will allow a belief in two erroneous doctrines in the Orthodeox Church.

What the Catholic Church actually teaches about Original Sin from the Catechism:

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man."293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed"—a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin—an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence." Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

Just a reminder that this thread is still on Faith Issues. If any of you Catholic posters would like to ask questions regarding our position vis-a-vis the Immaculate Conception, please ask them on the Orthodox-Catholic board. Thank you. (I left the post immediately above this here as the corrective it is intended to be, but the rest of the attempt at Orthodox-Catholic dialogue I moved to the Orthodox-Catholic board where it belongs.)

Just a reminder that this thread is still on Faith Issues. If any of you Catholic posters would like to ask questions regarding our position vis-a-vis the Immaculate Conception, please ask them on the Orthodox-Catholic board. Thank you.

Is it okay to agree with Immaculate Conception and still be Orthodox? No.

Why?

Because, as it has been put recently, the Theotokos is the great example, not the great exception. The Immaculate Conception also presupposes the doctrine of original guilt, which is foreign to Orthodox teaching. We are born in a fallen state, but we are not born damned. We bare the consequences of the fall, but not the guilt of it. The IC exists because Christ cannot have original guilt, as He is God and must be sinless. Therefore, he must have a sinless flesh to assume, and so The Virgin Mary is protected against this original guilt so that she may properly give birth to Christ.

Further, not only does the presupposition of original guilt not exist in Orthodoxy, the presupposition of fallenness does. Christ must assume all of our human nature, even our fallenness. St. Paul tells us, "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." (Heb. 4:15). Christ struggled with the very same passions we do, being subject to human fallen nature, but due to His divinity, He did not sin. This is vital in Orthodox theology. As St. Gregory the Theologian states, "that which was not assumed is not healed; but that which is united to God is saved."

Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy

Is it okay to agree with Immaculate Conception and still be Orthodox? No.

Why?

Because, as it has been put recently, the Theotokos is the great example, not the great exception. The Immaculate Conception also presupposes the doctrine of original guilt, which is foreign to Orthodox teaching. We are born in a fallen state, but we are not born damned. We bare the consequences of the fall, but not the guilt of it. The IC exists because Christ cannot have original guilt, as He is God and must be sinless. Therefore, he must have a sinless flesh to assume, and so The Virgin Mary is protected against this original guilt so that she may properly give birth to Christ.

Further, not only does the presupposition of original guilt not exist in Orthodoxy, the presupposition of fallenness does. Christ must assume all of our human nature, even our fallenness. St. Paul tells us, "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." (Heb. 4:15). Christ struggled with the very same passions we do, being subject to human fallen nature, but due to His divinity, He did not sin. This is vital in Orthodox theology. As St. Gregory the Theologian states, "that which was not assumed is not healed; but that which is united to God is saved."

Thank you for your very erudite answer, but I think Azurestone was trying to lure Fatman into giving us more than just a curt "NO."

Is it okay to agree with Immaculate Conception and still be Orthodox? No.

Why?

Because, as it has been put recently, the Theotokos is the great example, not the great exception. The Immaculate Conception also presupposes the doctrine of original guilt, which is foreign to Orthodox teaching. We are born in a fallen state, but we are not born damned. We bare the consequences of the fall, but not the guilt of it. The IC exists because Christ cannot have original guilt, as He is God and must be sinless. Therefore, he must have a sinless flesh to assume, and so The Virgin Mary is protected against this original guilt so that she may properly give birth to Christ.

Further, not only does the presupposition of original guilt not exist in Orthodoxy, the presupposition of fallenness does. Christ must assume all of our human nature, even our fallenness. St. Paul tells us, "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." (Heb. 4:15). Christ struggled with the very same passions we do, being subject to human fallen nature, but due to His divinity, He did not sin. This is vital in Orthodox theology. As St. Gregory the Theologian states, "that which was not assumed is not healed; but that which is united to God is saved."

Thank you for your very erudite answer, but I think Azurestone was trying to lure Fatman into giving us more than just a curt "NO."

Lol. In that case, whoops!

Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy

Is it okay to agree with Immaculate Conception and still be Orthodox? No.

Why?

Because, as it has been put recently, the Theotokos is the great example, not the great exception. The Immaculate Conception also presupposes the doctrine of original guilt, which is foreign to Orthodox teaching. We are born in a fallen state, but we are not born damned. We bare the consequences of the fall, but not the guilt of it. The IC exists because Christ cannot have original guilt, as He is God and must be sinless. Therefore, he must have a sinless flesh to assume, and so The Virgin Mary is protected against this original guilt so that she may properly give birth to Christ.

Further, not only does the presupposition of original guilt not exist in Orthodoxy, the presupposition of fallenness does. Christ must assume all of our human nature, even our fallenness. St. Paul tells us, "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." (Heb. 4:15). Christ struggled with the very same passions we do, being subject to human fallen nature, but due to His divinity, He did not sin. This is vital in Orthodox theology. As St. Gregory the Theologian states, "that which was not assumed is not healed; but that which is united to God is saved."

Thank you for your very erudite answer, but I think Azurestone was trying to lure Fatman into giving us more than just a curt "NO."

I am very interested to hear more from fatman because he is an Old Believer. We are constantly told by erudite Catholic apologists that the Old Believers have "maintained" the teaching of the Immaculate Conception.

With his access to reliable Old Believer sources and teaching fatman should be able to lay this to rest.